Linkbar

Translate

Monday, March 30, 2015

Undeniably, we need a strong opposition to keep the government in check. Any country devoid of an opposition would be a breeding ground for a dictatorship or autocracy. That is the fundamentals of a democracy. The other, of course, being that the majority decides.

This is so basic that any political philosophy student would know this.

While we need a strong opposition that can represent the dissenting voice of the people -- because in any society there will always be a dissenting voice -- it must at the same time be a responsible opposition. It must be an opposition that seeks the truth and not an opposition that criticises just for the sake of criticising, even when the government is right.

The opposition is going to extremes regarding the 1MDB issue. They have turned this into a personal crusade as a weapon to bring down the Prime Minister. The fact that certain leaders in Umno are also using this same issue to criticise the Prime Minister is giving the impression that the opposition and the ruling party are both united against the Prime Minister.

The government has already ordered an audit of 1MDB’s affairs. The police are also conducting an investigation. However, even before we are told about the outcome of these investigations, the opposition is acting like the results are already in and that the results prove wrongdoing on the part of the Prime Minister.Is this what seeking the truth is all about? Is truth about what the opposition says is the truth?

The opposition complains about trial by media against one of its own kind. But it has no qualms about trial by media against the Prime Minister. The opposition is giving an impression that the Prime Minister is guilty so whatever the outcome of the investigation no longer matters. And if the investigation proves otherwise they will protest that the investigation is fraudulent and a cover-up.

This leaves the authorities with very little room. Either you find the Prime Minister guilty or else the investigation’s conclusion will not be accepted. The opposition has already decided that the Prime Minister is guilty and this is the only verdict they want to hear.

The role of the opposition has changed from the seeker of truth to judge, jury and executioner. And this is most unfortunate because this has subverted the role of the opposition from a counterbalance to becoming an inquisition. And we all know that in an inquisition you are considered guilty unless you can prove your innocence. And this violates the very principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said yesterday that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. As students of political philosophy would know, the age-old saying goes: your freedom ends where my nose begins. That means you do not have the freedom to hurt me.

And you can hurt me in many ways, not just physically. And that is why Islam views slander as one of the major crimes, equivalent to murder.

Hammam ibn Al-Harith reported: We were sitting with Hudhaifa and it was said that a man falsely attributed a story to Uthman. Hudhaifa said: I heard the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, say, “The slanderer will not enter Paradise.” (Sahih Bukhari 5709, Sahih Muslim 105).

Online news portals must be responsible and not report distorted or untrue news. For example, the Mufti of Perlis, Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, has denied in his Blog what The Malaysian Insider reported he had said.

And now the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal, Syed Danial Syed Ahmad, has also issued an official statement denying yet another The Malaysian Insider news report. Furthermore, a police report has been lodged at the Jalan Travers Police Station.

When the police use the Sedition Act against those committing crimes the opposition cries out about injustice. They do not seem to realise that injustice also includes subjecting people to slander.

Justice has to work both ways. You cannot demand justice when you do not offer others justice as well.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

You do not have to be a political genius to see that both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are going through a crisis. The crises are both inter-party as well as intra-party. The party that comes out of this unscathed will be the party where its leader or leaders have superb crisis management skills.

Most of West Malaysian party from either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat are not free of an internal crisis. While we can be grateful that in Sabah we are being spared this dilemma, we cannot deny that any crisis in West Malaysia will invariably spill over and affect us.

Hence Umno President and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak would have to consider all aspects of this crisis and the repercussions all round in making his decision. Sometimes satisfying one group can end up alienating the other.

Nevertheless, in any crisis, to be able to ride it out will all depend on the support of his team, in this case his number two and the Umno Vice Presidents and Supreme Council. Any division at the top understandably would alter the landscape and influence the outcome of that crisis. This is very crucial in times of crisis.

The Hudud crisis is not Umno’s doing. But it can affect Umno. And when one leader makes a statement saying he supports Hudud while another says the opposite and yet another asks the party to take a strong stand on the issue this is opening Umno up to the danger of getting dragged into a crisis not of Umno’s own doing.

The Prime Minister has not said a word yet regarding Hudud. But many others have already done so, giving an impression that this is Umno’s official stand, which is not true at all. Sometimes I wonder whether they are just trying to be helpful or are attempting to throw a spanner into the works.

Let us wait for Prime Minister's statement on this matter.

For example, some say the Prime Minister should clear the air regarding the 1MDB impropriety allegation by the opposition. But this matter is already under investigation. Should the Prime Minister not then allow the investigation to be completed first and subject to the investigation result only then make a statement?

They accuse the Prime Minister of not allowing free speech. But when the Prime Minister allows them to talk, they say the Prime Minister should do something or take action to silence all this talk. Then when the Prime Minister sues those who lied about the 1MDB, they say he does not respect free speech.

So what do they want? Keep quiet also wrong. Take action also wrong. It appears these people are not consistent and do not really know what they want. Or maybe the real reason is they are not sincere.

It is the right of the Kelantan ruling party to approve the Sharia amendments in the Kelantan State Assembly. That is democracy. Should the Prime Minister condemn PAS for practicing democracy?

Let Parliament decide once this matter comes up for deliberation, whenever that may be. The Prime Minister is one of the 222 Members of Parliament. So there are still another 221 voices that have a right to their say in Parliament. Why make statements now, especially against the Prime Minister, as if it was the Prime Minister who pushed for Hudud in Kelantan?

Anwar Ibrahim is the opposition leader. Pakatan Rakyat refuses to remove him as opposition leader even though he is serving a jail sentence. So let Anwar state his stand on Hudud first before asking the Prime Minister to do the same. So why are these Umno leaders not aiming their comments at Anwar instead of at the Prime Minister?

And this goes for the opposition as well. Their own leader remains silent and they criticise the Prime Minister for not speaking up on Hudud.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

The saying that the next general election is not for Pakatan Rakyat to win but for Barisan Nasional to lose does not ring any truer than now. It appears like some Barisan Nasional leaders, in particular those from Umno, are bent on helping Pakatan Rakyat form the next federal government.

During WWII, the slogan in the UK was ‘loose lips sink ships’. That meant if you do not keep your mouth shut then Britain would face the danger of the enemy taking advantage of all that loose talk, in particular regarding secrets sensitive to the security of the country.

Have we not learned from the disaster of 2008? In the euphoria to topple the then Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Barisan Nasional suffered in the 2008 general election, which it was never able to recover from in the election following that in 2013. And the current attacks by the President’s own party leaders would be more damaging.

With some Umno leaders playing the leading role in attacking the Prime Minister and party President, the opposition can sit back and relax and let Umno help Pakatan Rakyat win the election. This in essence is what is happening.

KU LI

We do have some problems, no doubt, perception being the main one. However, whatever the Prime Minister may do, whether it is something good or bad, would still be twisted by the opposition. That is their job. The opposition is trying to influence the perception of the voters so that even good would be seen as bad.

It seems, however, that Umno leaders themselves are being taken in by what the opposition is saying. And it appears like Umno leaders are just aping what the opposition is saying without any regard for the damage it may do to the party.

When Umno attacks its own leaders it just lends credence to what the opposition is saying, which is Barisan Nasional is no longer fit to rule. This is what Umno themselves are saying, say the opposition. Hence Umno needs to seriously consider what the Americans would call ‘friendly fire’.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) said that the Umno division leaders (ketua bahagian) are receiving RM50,000 a month plus projects. Hence this would imply that they have been bought, which also implies they will invariably support the person who has bought them off -- meaning the Prime Minister, I suppose.

There are 191 division leaders, the Prime Minister, Ku LI and I included: I am the Ketua Bahagian of Kota Belud, Sabah. Are the three of us included -- because I have not been receiving RM50,000 a month or projects -- and is Ku Li admitting that he is also receiving RM50,000 a month plus projects?

As a very senior politician, Ku Li should not be making sweeping statements. He not only tarnishes the name of the 191 Umno division heads but also the image and dignity of the whole of Umno. This gives the voters all the more reason to not support Umno in the next election if a very senior Umno leader himself admits that Umno is corrupt to the core.

In short, Ku Li is saying that Umno is corrupt and that its 191 division heads are dishonest. Now the voters can say that this is not what the opposition says but what a very senior Umno leader himself says.

This allegation is slanderous. For example, I, for one, who have not been receiving RM50,000 a month or projects, can sue Ku Li for defamation as this statement has tarnished my image since I am also a division leader.

When statements like these are made they have to be backed by evidence. If what Ku Li says is true then I take it he has the evidence to back up this allegation. Maybe Ku Li can then show us this evidence. If not, then he owes many of us who were never beneficiaries of monthly handouts an apology.

Friday, March 13, 2015

I remember back in 1997 when Anwar Ibrahim’s gang in Umno attacked the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad regarding his family and friends who were alleged to have enriched themselves through their association with Seri Perdana.

The allegation of cronyism and nepotism was the rallying call at that time, which Dr Mahathir was accused of. Basically, the Prime Minister was subjected to a trial by media and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The public, of course, swallowed everything that was being said mainly because any allegation against the powers-that-be is always seen as the truth even if the allegations are not supported by tangible evidence.

DR M

Such is the occupational hazard of being in public office. The accuser need not prove guilt but the accused needs to prove innocence, contrary to what the justice system is supposed to practice.

Anwar Ibrahim laments that he was subjected to trial by media in both the Sodomy 1 and Sodomy 2 episodes. He further laments that the attacks against him are unfair and unjust. Dr Mahathir, too, used to complain about the same thing back in the days when he was under attack.

Today, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is being given the same ‘justice’ that was given to Dr Mahathir almost 18 years ago and what Anwar complains he is being subjected to now. Why is it wrong in one situation and right in other?

Najib has already asked that a thorough investigation be conducted to get to the bottom of the controversy surrounding the 1MDB. That investigation has just commenced and it is still ongoing. Is it not better to wait for the result of this investigation before we attempt to come to any conclusion?

ANWAR

In the legal profession they say that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to have been done.If this is the standard of justice that we wish to apply then it would be prudent to allow the authority that has been entrusted with this task to complete its work before we decided whether the one being investigated is proven guilty or otherwise.

Just because someone is the Prime Minister does not mean he is not entitled to the same standard of justice that any normal Malaysian would expect for himself or herself.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

The Malaysian Government needs to establish who is this Doris Jones who is allegedly leading the movement called Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM). It seems Jones is her husband’s name and she is based in Northampton, UK.

Doris has been in the UK for some time but became politically active only since she met Ambiga from Bersih during a talk held in London.

She is said to have left Malaysia some time ago and is a UK Resident. Hence she left Malaysia for marriage and career reasons and not because she was being persecuted for being too outspoken as she is suggesting.

Doris is also closely associated with another UK movement called Friends of Pakatan Rakyat that is based in London and headed by PKR and DAP supporters.

The impression that Doris is creating is that Sabah and Sarawak are ‘fighting’ to secede from Malaysia and, of course, such a romantic notion has attracted the attention of the UK press such as the BBC, which recently gave her an interview.

This is nowhere near the truth. Sabah and Sarawak are not fighting for independence. At best, all we are asking for is some measure of autonomy not amounting to home rule but at least in the sprit of being able to determine our own destiny and manage those affairs that can be interpreted as state matters.

This misrepresentation of what is really happening in Sabah and Sarawak is very mischievous and must be answered by the Malaysian government. There is no armed conflict in Sabah and Sarawak and neither is there unrest such as Sabahans and Sarawakians up in arms asking for freedom from Malaysia.

This, however, seems to be the general impression being created. And this impression needs to be set straight.

After saying all that, we cannot deny that there does exist some unhappiness, which can easily be resolved through dialogue with the federal government in Putrajaya.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

In 1999, Anwar Ibrahim’s supporters started a new party called Parti Keadilan Nasional (PKN). A few months later, this new party formed a loose coalition with DAP, PAS and PRM called Barisan Alternatif.

Not long after that, Barisan Alternatif collapsed when PAS passed the amendments to the Sharia Bill in the Terengganu State Assembly to include the criminal laws of Hudud.

In the 2004 general election, PKR (a so-called merger between PKN and PRM), DAP and PAS entered into an electoral pact to ensure that they avoided three-corner fights. In some constituencies this agreement broke down when ‘independent’ candidates who defied their party’s instructions still contested.

I said “a so-called merger between PKN and PRM” because it was not actually a merger but more that some PRM members crossed over to join PKN and PKN then changed its name to PKR.

Then, in 2008, they formed a new loose coalition called Pakatan Rakyat. Unlike Barisan Nasional, however, Pakatan Rakyat is not a registered party. It is just an understanding or pact.

And that is why we are seeing so much squabbles and disagreements in Pakatan Rakyat. Their pact is not legally binding so each party looks after its own interests first and the interest of the loose coalition second.

The second most glaring problem facing Pakatan Rakyat is its reluctance to form a Shadow Cabinet like Barisan Alternatif did in 1999. If they could do it in 1999 why can’t they do it now? In most countries, England included, those countries that adopt the British Westminster system of Parliament have Shadow Cabinets.

However, while Pakatan Rakyat does not have a Shadow Cabinet, it does have a Shadow Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, who is officially the Opposition Leader in Parliament.

The reason Pakatan Rakyat is not able to form a Shadow Cabinet is because they cannot come to an agreement on the Cabinet line-up. In the event Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the federal government, this Shadow Cabinet will become the ruling government’s Cabinet. And Pakatan Rakyat does not want Malaysians to know yet who will be in this Cabinet.

In the demonstration in front of Sogo in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s name and photograph was featured on the posters and banners. The impression they are creating is that Dr Mahathir is now behind the opposition and that he, too, wants Anwar released from jail and for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to step down.

Is this the message the opposition is sending to Malaysians: that Dr Mahathir is taking over from Anwar as the de facto Opposition Leader?

Thursday, March 5, 2015

It is said that politicians start conflicts, diplomats then step in to resolve the conflict, and solders take over when the conflict cannot be resolved and nations go to war.

Many are of the opinion that the American Civil War was about slavery. Actually it was not. It was about the South wanting to secede from the United States and declare independence.

No doubt the quarrel started over slavery. The North, which was industrialised, wanted to end slavery, which would have hurt the South that depended on cotton and hence on slave labour.

Because of this disagreement the South wanted to leave the Union and that was when and why the civil water started.

Hence when we wish to negotiate we need to also use diplomacy and not just politics. Any negotiation that starts of with the word ‘non-negotiable’ is doomed to fail even before it starts. That is not a negotiation but an ultimatum.

Today, people always talk about a win-win situation, whether in business or in government. And in a win-win situation both parties need to feel like they have walked away from the negotiation table with something to gain. A winner-takes-all stand benefits only one side and the other side would be sent home with a bitter taste in the mouth.

We must also be realistic and practical. If we enter into a negotiation knowing that our demands will not be acceptable by the other side then it is a waste of time to even start. We already know it is going to fail.

Maybe on the question of autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak, whether full or partial, we should put politics aside and put on our diplomat’s hat. Let the message that we send to Putrajaya be clear that we wish to seek a compromise. That will attract Putrajaya to the conference table.

It is like how Pakatan Rakyat is negotiating in Sarawak regarding the state seats allocation for the coming state election. From the onset PKR says it wants 70% of the seats and there is no compromise on the matter. This matter is non-negotiable.

This means this is no longer a seat negotiation but a demand.

We must remember that secession is not provided for in the Malaysian Agreement. So it is not like Sabah can demand and then leave Malaysia if this demand is not met. At the end of the day we can only express our dissatisfaction and request that Putrajaya takes note of this and try to meet us at least halfway, somewhere in the middle. That, to me, would be a good start.